Rutherford v. United States · ¶46

Concepcion v. United States, 597 U. S. 481, is not to the contrary. Concepcion involved sentence-modification proceedings under a different provision of the Act. See id., at 486–487. All agreed that the defendant was eligible for a reduction under that provision; the only question was what type of information the District Court could consider in modifying his sentence. See id., at 488 (explaining that “[t]he Government conceded [the defendant's] eligibility for relief”). Because that provision lacks any limiting language, we concluded that a court could consider changes to the Guidelines, as well as intervening facts, when calculating a new sentence under it. Id., at 500. Today's cases differ from Concepcion because they concern whether a prisoner is eligible for compassionate release in the first place. And on that score, Congress has “expressly cabined district courts' discretion,”…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.